F (A Child) (Fact-Finding Appeal), Re [2019] EWCA Civ 1244 (16 July 2019)

F (A Child) (Fact-Finding Appeal), Re [2019] EWCA Civ 1244 (16 July 2019)

The appeal was allowed because the judge's finding that the child's injuries were inflicted by the father was not adequately supported by the medical evidence, and the judge failed to sufficiently explain how the evidence justified the finding of non-accidental injury. The medical experts could not identify a clear...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1244
Parties
Appellant: Father; 1st Respondent: Local Authority; 2nd Respondent: Mother; 3rd Respondent: Child (F) through Guardian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings (fact Finding Appeal) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; rehearing permitted at the discretion of the Local Authority.
Legal Topics
Care Proceedings, Non Accidental Injury, Expert Evidence, Fact Finding, Children Act 1989, Children and Families Act 2014
Family Law Child Protection Care Proceedings Non Accidental Injury Expert Evidence Fact Finding Children Act 1989 Children and Families Act 2014

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Local Authority

1st Respondent

Mother

2nd Respondent

Child (F) through Guardian

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings (fact Finding Appeal) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge's finding that the child's injuries were inflicted by the father was sustainable on the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the judge properly evaluated and explained the medical evidence
  3. 3 Whether the threshold criteria under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 were met

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge's finding that the child's injuries were inflicted by the father was not adequately supported by the medical evidence, and the judge failed to sufficiently explain how the evidence justified the finding of non-accidental injury. The medical experts could not identify a clear mechanism for the injuries, and the treating clinician's evidence was not sufficient to outweigh the uncertainties and lack of consensus among the experts. The judgment was set aside as unsustainable on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; rehearing permitted at the discretion of the Local Authority.

Orders

  • Judgment of HHJ Hudson set aside.
  • Local Authority permitted to pursue a rehearing if they choose.